I guess if you don't count well-staged and choreographed fist-fights as action sequences the movie would be totally disappointing on an action standpoint. But since I do count things like that as action sequences I'm left puzzled by people saying this has a lack of action.

There's a difference between an action sequence and an action set piece. An action set piece is a car chase that turns into a rooftop motorcycle chase and ends up on the roof of a speeding train. Two guys slugging it out for three or four minutes isn't an action set piece, no matter how well it's choreographed. Bond movies are all about action set pieces, not artfully backlit fist fights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim

Yeah, that's the one context in which that goofy code name idea actually makes some sense.

I can understand if the movie isn't your cup of tea-- but finding fault with a Bond villain master plan because it's needlessly convoluted is weird to me. If it weren't baroque and nonsensical, it wouldn't be a Bond villain plot. Kinda goes with the territory.

That said, I agree with this particular gripe to a degree. I really hope from here on out we can dispense with the villain-gets-himself-caught-on-purpose trope in adventure movies. It's already pretty played out, and was my least favorite part of SKYFALL, plot-wise. I loved everything-- like the chase through the underground and the shoot-out at the hearing-- that it led to, though.

Bond villain plots are typically convoluted, but usually in accordance with whatever epically outlandish goal they seek to achieve. In this movie, the villain's goal was painfully pedestrian, and with the resources he had at his disposal, should have been child's play to achieve. Everything that happened between Silva releasing the undercover agent's identities and bursting into the hearing to kill M was pointless, and often ran counter to his goal.

And not only that, but the stakes were laughably low, as the movie itself demonstrates. The one thing Bond was trying to prevent from happening, happened. And everything turned out fine in the end anyway.

Think about that for a second.

James Bond failed in his mission. And there were no real consequences.

A[quote name="TCD" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/250#post_3419992"]
The villain was a pointless weirdo with infinite, unexplained resources who's "master plan" was retardation incarnate. It was needlessly convoluted and basically made no sense. I'd love for someone to outline it for me in detail.
[/quote]

That's the one thing that bugged the shit out of me after leaving the theater. I don't mind the scaled back realistic tone they were taking the franchise in, no more exploding pens, and it was great seeing Craig and Dench shine. But the elaborate plan was just too stupidly lazy copycat of Joker's scheme in the Dark Knight that reminded me of the too stupidly lazy copycat shit they pulled in Quantum of Solace's last scene. Didn't ruin the movie for me - dug the intro chase, the goofy lizard pit fight, and the last stand (plus the unboxing of the car) - but come on, you can do better than that.

I like the idea that the Craig movies are all Dr. No prequels. Then for the first time we can have in-movie continuity that happily loops back in on itself and implodes.

But seriously, I thought this was a pretty great movie. I get why people are bringing up The Dark Knight -- a lot of the score cues reminded me strongly of Zimmer, Silva is basically a tech-savvy, more gay Joker, and some of the dialogue -- "he meant to be caught!" -- is basically lifted straight from Nolan's movies. But I'm not saying it bothered me. I thought Newman's score was really good, and Silva was quite interesting. And man, the fucking photography. The photography is just so amazing.

It makes me wonder what's next for this franchise. If this has really been Bond Begins, then presumably we're going to be served a more classic version of Bond on the next go-round, especially now that everything, including that damn office, is all set up. I just hope they keep what's been so great about the last few movies, which is the emphasis on Bond as a human being who actually feels things in a non-ironic way, and don't slide into the self-conscious winking at the audience stuff that this movie sort of flirts with.

Did anybody else find Silva's story about the rats really chillingly effective? It's a genuinely impressive combo of good writing and better acting, I think. But again, all the stuff where the villain tells stories from his troubled past? Reminded me a lot of the Joker.

Re: Avian's points. The most salient criticism here is that Q is a bit of a dope, but then again, the movie sets him as being less experienced and somewhat over-sure of his abilities and experience. (At least that's something I took away from his introductory scene in the museum with Bond.) When he does the naturally dumb thing, I think we're supposed to smirk at him; he's slow enough on the uptake that he doesn't even realize it's his fault right away. Newbie fumbling courtesy of hubris.

My issue with that would be that all three of the newbies basically have the same arc. They show up, Bond thinks they're an asshole, then they prove themselves to him, and by the end they're all a team I guess? Except that Eve just randomly decides "Nah, I'm not cut out for fieldwork" after she's pretty much been pitch-perfect (note that she doesn't decide this after shooting Bond, but after saving him in Macao, defending M in the courthouse, etc.). It just rings of "But Moneypenny is a secretary!"

Before you think I'm just nitpicking, I actually thought they were going in the direction of Moneypenny successfully making the decision Bond tried to make near the end of Casino Royale, and getting out of the business while there's a soul left to salvage. THAT would've made so much sense and given their relationship so much depth, that I can't believe they just went with "Oh well, some people just can't be spies even when they totally can be." It's like the movie wants to have its cake and eat it too.

Also, how many people do we have now whose entire job description is chatting up Bond over an earpiece? There's M, Turner, Moneypenny, and Q (since he doesn't hand out gadgets anymore. Because it's silly). Are we going to be watching Bond movies or Metal Gear Solid?

My next post should probably be some praise before people start thinking this is a McNooj vs. TDKR situation. Because I really did like the movie, silly continuity and all. It's just I liked Casino Royale more and this had it in it to match CR, and I'm interested in why it didn't.

You'd have to throw in a terrible pun before the laser hits. You know, a Mr. Freeze from Batman & Robin style pun.

"You thought I was gay, sir...

but now I'll kill your boss with my la-ser!"

Skyfall is a whole week of Saturday nights, a hot fudge sundae with 100 orgasms sprinkled on top, a Mardi Gras of Bondian bliss. All you nit-pickers and nay-sayers are crazier than Bardem's midget nostril.

for a movie forum, there are sure a lot of people that don't like movies.

Really, someone is complaining that a Bond villain's plan was convoluted? What's next, someone complaining that water is wet?

I mean, if we are going to complain about villains, how about Quantum employing a man with a gambling problem to handle their clients money?

Objection, Le Chiffre didn't have a gambling problem, he had a "James Bond wrecking his Wall Street scam" problem.

And I think we can attribute the complaints to all the build-up to this, THIS is what Silva has been planning for years, THIS is his grand revenge, THIS is what he's spent the entire movie orchestrating... and it's one step above a drive-by shooting. Sorta like when there was all that build-up to the villain's plan in Quantum of Solace, and it turned out he just wanted to control the utilities in Bolivia. By comparison, Le Chiffre's plan is even more rinky-dink... he wants to win a card game to pay back the terrorists he stole from... but because the movie doesn't hype up that Le Chiffre is a SUPER-SECRET CRAZY AWESOME CRIMINAL GENIUS, you don't go "Wait, that's his plan? I could've come up with something better than that!"

There's a difference between an action sequence and an action set piece. An action set piece is a car chase that turns into a rooftop motorcycle chase and ends up on the roof of a speeding train. Two guys slugging it out for three or four minutes isn't an action set piece, no matter how well it's choreographed. Bond movies are all about action set pieces, not artfully backlit fist fights.

This sounds super-weird.

It's like "Goddamnit! I had these two big action sequences and plenty of other small scale stuff! But I wanted a bunch of crazy shit happening for the whole movie!'

I sort of was hoping that M was going to live, but Bond was going to say she died. Mirror what happened to Bond in the beginning and let M sort of walk off into the sunset. Hell, she could have went off with Kingcade and lived happily ever after.

A[quote name="Sebastian OB" url="/community/t/145354/skyfall-post-release/250#post_3419923"]
Wish that was in the movie!

Again, I like FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. For its time it is very good. But I don't see how you can get a film like SKYFALL and say to yourself, "Nice try Sam Mendes, but nowhere near the unbridled genius of Terence Young's masterpiece!"
[/quote]

I enjoy FRWL and SF for a variety of reasons and consider them my top two, but at the moment prefer the former film and not because I think it's "better" but because I find it more appealing. It's just a preference.

for a movie forum, there are sure a lot of people that don't like movies.

Really, someone is complaining that a Bond villain's plan was convoluted? What's next, someone complaining that water is wet?

I mean, if we are going to complain about villains, how about Quantum employing a man with a gambling problem to handle their clients money?

The complaint isn't that Silva's plan is too convoluted, full stop. It's that his plan was too convoluted for what he was trying to achieve. He wanted to kill M. He had virtually unlimited resources and invincible hacker skills. He should have been able to handle one simple murder with a phone call before breakfast. Instead, he repeatedly risks death and lifetime imprisonment... for some reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega

This sounds super-weird.

It's like "Goddamnit! I had these two big action sequences and plenty of other small scale stuff! But I wanted a bunch of crazy shit happening for the whole movie!'

Well, we got one big action sequence. The Bond manor scene was really nothing more than a random collection of gunfire and explosions. The opening scene at least had the sense of logic and momentum worthy of a Bond action sequence.

But yes, I am upset that in a Bond movie that was two and half hours long, the only big action set pieces were before the credits and in the finale. James Bond =/= small scale. Sorry if that seems super-weird.

AJames Bond films should NOT be action films, they should be adventure films. The Brosnan era lost sight of that with the excessive action sequences by Vic Armstrong. CASINO ROYALE was so refreshing because that was the return of Bond being adventure films. QUANTUM OF SOLACE was obviously a misstep as they piled so much action that didn't mean anything. I'm very happy SKYFALL didn't continue that route and instead went with what CR laid out in the first place. Bond films should only have a maximum of three action set pieces otherwise it's just mindnumbing.

Like we had Bond movies that are mostly nothing but spectacle. Most of them suck. Skyfall's smart enough to make sure most of the action happens for actual reasons as opposed to "Bond gets in another chase sequence and shit blows up" and understands that a good suspenseful fistfight* is worth ten scenes of big-budget mayhem any day of the week.

I mean seriously think about Die Another Day for a second. Because if you think that movie is superior to Skyfall on the basis of "fun spectacle" then the whole conversation is already lost.

James Bond films should NOT be action films, they should be adventure films. The Brosnan era lost sight of that with the excessive action sequences by Vic Armstrong. CASINO ROYALE was so refreshing because that was the return of Bond being adventure films. QUANTUM OF SOLACE was obviously a misstep as they piled so much action that didn't mean anything. I'm very happy SKYFALL didn't continue that route and instead went with what CR laid out in the first place. Bond films should only have a maximum of three action set pieces otherwise it's just mindnumbing.

I would have been thrilled if Skyfall had three spectacular action set pieces like Casino Royale (Madagascar, Miami International Airport, and Venice). Instead it had one. I'm all for Bond movies being brought into the modern age. I just don't think stripping them of action is the way to go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega

It seems really super-weird.

Like we had Bond movies that are mostly nothing but spectacle. Most of them suck. Skyfall's smart enough to make sure most of the action happens for actual reasons as opposed to "Bond gets in another chase sequence and shit blows up" and understands that a good suspenseful fistfight* is worth ten scenes of big-budget mayhem any day of the week.

I mean seriously think about Die Another Day for a second. Because if you think that movie is superior to Skyfall on the basis of "fun spectacle" then the whole conversation is already lost.

*People can argue otherwise but nothing beats a good fistfight.

Yeah, sorry... but a lot of the action in Skyfall didn't happen for a good reason. It happened because the villain apparently realized he was in a James Bond movie and decided to carry out his master plan in the most ridiculous, contrived way possible so we could have some action scenes. The real sin is that those action scenes left so much to be desired. Either be over the top and give me spectacle, or be realistic and gritty and give me narrative-driven, small-scale action. But don't give me over the top coupled with small-scale action. It's not a good combination.

The "more action" complaints are the beggining of the path towards Bay-dom. This had as much action as the story demanded and of proper scale too. They were not suprefluous.

And I'm quite certain that both M and Moneypenny will feature much more prominently this time around. Q too. Dench as M followed pretty much the archetype at first but with the Craig films got her more and more involved.

The "more action" complaints are the beggining of the path towards Bay-dom. This had as much action as the story demanded and of proper scale too. They were not suprefluous.

Every action beat that happened in between the release of the undercover agent's identities and Silva trying to kill M at the hearing was completely superfluous. None of that had to happen. M should have been dead the moment her disgrace went public. Silva didn't need to wait for Bond to arrive at his island (while strangely trying to kill him in the process), get captured, escape, and then try to kill M. He could have easily killed her anytime before all of that.

If the argument is that dumb, pointless action ruins the integrity of the movie, then those making that argument need to reconcile it with the colossal idiocy of Silva's plan.

If the argument is that stupid villain plots are just part of the Bond tradition, then those making that argument need to reconcile it with the dearth of action spectacle, also a Bond tradition.

I'm mainly in agreement with jhp1608 about this mediocre, irrationally overhyped movie ("mainly" because I probably liked it less than he did).

Even with its unfinished script, QUANTUM OF SOLACE had a story and characters that made sense. SKYFALL is just all over the place and, incredibly, Craig can't hold it together (like jhp, I'm pretty much done with him in the role).

The opening sequence is an ass-kicker, Dench is superb, Deakins' visuals are as solid as one would expect, but beyond those things I'm at a loss. Huge disappointment.

Caught the matinee on Friday afternoon and I went in tubla rasa without reading any reviews in any regard. In the end: I didn't like it and I didn't hate it.

As a Bond fan, my thing is I like to surmise what the baddie has in store for 007 and I was quite excited w/ the casting of Javier Bardem and when I saw him coming down for his grand entrance w/ his rat speech, I was giggling.

I factored straight-away when he was feeling on Bond that it was a psychological tactic and nothing more to throw Bond off his game and the way Bond replied was that he had to let Silva know that he wasn’t uncomfortable - but yet Bond was.

The cell bit w/ Silva’s back-story was OK and when he pulled out his mouth-piece, I wanted to be terrified - but I was giggling again.

As I saw more of Silva, I knew that he won't be up to snuff and I saw the similarities of 006 from GOLDENEYE. He had the makings of a great villain but his motives for wanting to kill M was all-day stale and for being a rogue spy w/ CPU hyper-skills, Silva turned out to be a brainless hoodlum brandishing a gun. I mean he’s going to target M straight-up at her hearing and comes guns-a-blazin’ - but drops no grenades in the room. Nit-pick, I know.

Silva just needed an apology and a hug from M. Perhaps even some cookies to make him feel better for his service.

I hated the title sequence. IMHO: It looked dull and stale. Totally un-original. Adele’s theme was good - but hearing it on the big screen, I didn’t feel the impact of it. Perhaps it was the particular theatre’s sound system, it wasn’t dialed up and everything sounded normal, even the explosions.

Another IMHO: The cinematography was good not great. I just didn’t feel it like others did.

The casino bit with the komodo dragon I’m fine with - but c’mon, a human just got ate up and security was nowhere in fucking sight and Bond walks off like nothing happened.

The Bond Girl(s) were cute and likable. I really liked Naomie Harris and she was really gorgeous.

007 sees Kincaid and tells them that men are coming to kill them. I factor the screenwriters were watching HARD TARGET. And don't act like ya'll didn't see Kincaid was straight crushing on M. LULz!!

I liked Mallory, he kept me guessing if he was good or bad for a minute. I would have done a backflip and died in an orgasmic bliss if the new M was Timothy Dalton. Yep, I said it. Holla back.

There’s comparisons to THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and I’ll take SKYFALL over it because the action in SKYFALL is handled better.

And not only that, but the stakes were laughably low, as the movie itself demonstrates. The one thing Bond was trying to prevent from happening, happened. And everything turned out fine in the end anyway.

Think about that for a second.

James Bond failed in his mission. And there were no real consequences.

I'm on record in the "Best of Bond" thread for disliking QUATUM OF SOLACE partly because of the lack of grandiosity in Quantum's master plan. And, broken down to its basest element, Silva's plot isn't much better-- simple revenge on M.

But the elaborate nature of Silva and his plan are actually the redeeming qualities in SKYFALL, as far as I'm concerned... Sure, the stakes are relatively low, but the methods by which the villain pursues his objective are in the world-beating category. I do wish they'd mined more drama out of the ramifications of a steady leak of NATO agents' identities, but they didn't.

I also noted a few posts above that SKYFALL is the first Bond picture in which he fails at his basic mission. I actually find that to be an interesting twist on the Bond formula.

He fails, and still he has a job at the end of the movie. So do Q, and Tanner, and Mallory, despite the fact that they were all in on Bond's scheme... As for why there were no real consequences for Bond's failure (outside of M's death)-- my guess is that, since they were trying to push M out of the job anyway, her death saved HMG a lot of trouble.

Better to sweep it all under the rug and get on with the work of the Secret Service.

Wow. I hate to be put in the same company as Gabe and Duke Fleed(well not so much Duke actually) but I thought this was dogshit. I can't say I'm too surprised though. I've hated every single film I've seen in theaters this year, so maybe I'm just going to have to accept the problem is me at this point. Even so I'm finding it hard to reconcile with the idea that grown adults think Bardem's performance is somehow scary or chilling or anything other than laughable. I mean...wow. Fuck. He was awful.

I would have left at the half way point if I hadn't gone with friends.

I recently went through the entire "Best of Bond" thread so it might just be me but did anyone else have a hard time getting Chud poster Paul Mccartney out of their head while watching this? During several instances it was hard to think of anything else.

Specifically:

-the many yellow/blue tinted scenes.

-the added screen time for Judi Dench who he hates.

-tons of self-serious "granny" dialogue

-the fact that Bardem is basically a rip-off of Ledger's Joker, which he again hates

-the Nolan-y sound ques

-the abysmal Hannibal Lecter/Joker Lite mind game scenes

I mean, the film seems to have been made specifically to troll him. If that's the case I have a feeling they're going to succeed 100%. There were times when I wondered if Purvis and Wade actually read these boards and were angry at some comment he made about them or something. If he doesn't go on a killing spree after seeing it I'd love for him to come back just to shred the film to pieces. The praise for it is already becoming a bit insufferable. I can only hope it's contained mostly in this thread in the days ahead.

The comparisons to THE DARK KNIGHT RISES are really apt; there's a lot of similarities going on here, though SKYFALL really does execute them so much better. It's interesting that this broken hero coming out of retirement thing seems to be part of the zeitgeist right now. As an aging dude I appreciate it.

There is a Bond film that The Dark Knight Rises shares a TON of similarities with, but it isn't Skyfall. It is Brosnan's The World Is Not Enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Swoosh

My other thought, and this may put people off, is that she's there for Idris Elba's run as 007. Full disclosure, I'm black, so....

I wouldn't put any stock in those rumors. While the producers muse on the idea of a Black Bond someday (Colin Salmon was mentioned in the late 90s), they will never do it. Wrong or not, it just won't happen. If Elba has met with the producers, it is far likelier that they are interested in him being the big baddie (or another main role) for Bond 24, which they started scripting back in June and will shoot in the latter half of next year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by felix

Surprised that they revealed "M"s real name here.

Funnily enough, Dench's Craig-era M is the only one that we DON'T have a real name for.

Bernard Lee's M is Sir Miles Messervy, a name which exists not only in the original novels, but it uttered in at least one of the Moore films. Robert Brown's Admiral Hargreaves was his replacement, promoted once Messervy retired (aka Lee passed away). Dench's M from the Brosnan-era is Barbara Mawdsley, a name given in the books at the time and novelizations. While never uttered on film, it's still pretty much accepted canon.

We were never give her Craig-era character's name, but either her first or last name also coincidentally begins with an "M"....judging from Bond's comments in Casino Royale. If you recall, Bond almost says her name outloud, but she threatens to have him killed if he finishes the sentence. Perhaps Emma is her real first name after all?

Of course, Gareth Mallory is our new "M". That leaves Brown's Hargreaves as the only head of the organization to date that doesn't have the letter beginning his last name.

Every action beat that happened in between the release of the undercover agent's identities and Silva trying to kill M at the hearing was completely superfluous. None of that had to happen. M should have been dead the moment her disgrace went public. Silva didn't need to wait for Bond to arrive at his island (while strangely trying to kill him in the process), get captured, escape, and then try to kill M. He could have easily killed her anytime before all of that.

If the argument is that dumb, pointless action ruins the integrity of the movie, then those making that argument need to reconcile it with the colossal idiocy of Silva's plan.

If the argument is that stupid villain plots are just part of the Bond tradition, then those making that argument need to reconcile it with the dearth of action spectacle, also a Bond tradition.

You can't have it both ways.

Superfluous with the meaning that stuff wasn't added to an action scene over what already had to be there. Take Shanghai for example. Bond tracks an assassin, fights him, action over. There didn't just "happen" top be some extra baddies around to spice up the scene.

Or at the beggining. Three or four extra cars with bad guys didn't just appear as usual to make the chase more "exciting."

There is action that organically flows from the story the movie tells and there's action that happens because someone involved wanted to spice things up.

Oh, what's the deal with the orange/teal blue/yellow complaints? Are we gonna complain when the DP follows color theory now?

I'm on record in the "Best of Bond" thread for disliking QUATUM OF SOLACE partly because of the lack of grandiosity in Quantum's master plan. And, broken down to its basest element, Silva's plot isn't much better-- simple revenge on M.

But the elaborate nature of Silva and his plan are actually the redeeming qualities in SKYFALL, as far as I'm concerned... Sure, the stakes are relatively low, but the methods by which the villain pursues his objective are in the world-beating category. I do wish they'd mined more drama out of the ramifications of a steady leak of NATO agents' identities, but they didn't.

I also noted a few posts above that SKYFALL is the first Bond picture in which he fails at his basic mission. I actually find that to be an interesting twist on the Bond formula.

He fails, and still he has a job at the end of the movie. So do Q, and Tanner, and Mallory, despite the fact that they were all in on Bond's scheme... As for why there were no real consequences for Bond's failure (outside of M's death)-- my guess is that, since they were trying to push M out of the job anyway, her death saved HMG a lot of trouble.

Better to sweep it all under the rug and get on with the work of the Secret Service.

That the stakes were ultimately inconsequential is a basic failure of the movie. Drama is inherent in story-telling. Conflict is inherent in drama. And you can't have real conflict if nothing is at stake. When the driving force of a movie is "We must save this character!", and then that character ends up dying and everything is still okay, the movie is basically now saying "Hey, that thing I said earlier? Never mind. It didn't really matter". The heart of the conflict - and thus the conflict itself - has been stripped away. And now we're just left with some explosions and a bunch of people chasing each other around for no particular reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios

Superfluous with the meaning that stuff wasn't added to an action scene over what already had to be there. Take Shanghai for example. Bond tracks an assassin, fights him, action over. There didn't just "happen" top be some extra baddies around to spice up the scene.

Or at the beggining. Three or four extra cars with bad guys didn't just appear as usual to make the chase more "exciting."

There is action that organically flows from the story the movie tells and there's action that happens because someone involved wanted to spice things up.

I feel like you're splitting hairs now. You're saying that the action scenes themselves were organic in that they weren't anymore than they needed to be, while ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that their very existence was completely unnecessary. I'd rather have logic-defying action sequences that are at least fun to watch than subdued, economical ones born of a ridiculous narrative.

I feel like you're splitting hairs now. You're saying that the action scenes themselves were organic in that they weren't anymore than they needed to be, while ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that their very existence was completely unnecessary. I'd rather have logic-defying action sequences that are at least fun to watch than subdued, economical ones born of a ridiculous narrative.

The film's plot is the film's plot. Your problems are with the plot then not the action.

Still, if that's your opinion I guess we disagree completely. I'd rather a film follow its story and rules even if they're bad than insert "cool" action that breaks with them.

That the stakes were ultimately inconsequential is a basic failure of the movie. Drama is inherent in story-telling. Conflict is inherent in drama. And you can't have real conflict if nothing is at stake. When the driving force of a movie is "We must save this character!", and then that character ends up dying and everything is still okay, the movie is basically now saying "Hey, that thing I said earlier? Never mind. It didn't really matter". The heart of the conflict - and thus the conflict itself - has been stripped away. And now we're just left with some explosions and a bunch of people chasing each other around for no particular reason.

No. I'm not saying the stakes involved in SKYFALL are inconsequential, or ought to be. They have consequence-- certainly for M, since she ends up dead.

That conflict, that drama is there. Your gauge seems to be whether there's a clock ticking down to total world destruction, or some such.

The fact that the world goes on, despite her death and despite Bond's failure-- and that the Secret Service still needs men like him-- does not negate the events that have come before, at all. That's practically the fucking thesis of the whole picture.

Thought it was fantastic until they actually get to Skyfall. "Every NATO agent in the World is in danger, and its up to M, Mr Bond and an elderly groundskeeper to save the day with whacky hijinx!" Yeah, scope got zeroed in waaaay too much.

China looked amazing and unsettling futuristic, with the best action scene. JMW Turner, thats my dawg. Saw the film with a real live Englishman, he quite enjoyed everything set in the Tubes.

Funnily enough, Dench's Craig-era M is the only one that we DON'T have a real name for.

Bernard Lee's M is Sir Miles Messervy, a name which exists not only in the original novels, but it uttered in at least one of the Moore films. Robert Brown's Admiral Hargreaves was his replacement, promoted once Messervy retired (aka Lee passed away). Dench's M from the Brosnan-era is Barbara Mawdsley, a name given in the books at the time and novelizations. While never uttered on film, it's still pretty much accepted canon.

We were never give her Craig-era character's name, but either her first or last name also coincidentally begins with an "M"....judging from Bond's comments in Casino Royale. If you recall, Bond almost says her name outloud, but she threatens to have him killed if he finishes the sentence. Perhaps Emma is her real first name after all?

I was toying with that same idea. I'd forgotten that they gave Judi Dench's M of the 90s a name in the novels (in the Benson ones, I'm guessing). And of course the Judi Dench of the Craig era doesn't have to be the same character at all... Confusing!

I wonder at the difficulty the real-life Secret Intelligence Service would have if they had to find a succession of chiefs with a "C" in their name somewhere.

- the plot is a simple revenge scheme that is poorly thought out and does not hold up to the slightest scrutiny.

- the film is too long for what it's trying to achieve

- the film needs more action

However, it's a quality film. The acting is superb, the cinematography is amazing, and the action scenes that ARE present are exceptionally well done (the Shanghai fistfight was a cinematic orgasm of the highest degree).

I don't find it to be successful as a BOND film, but I do find it incredibly successful as a BOND ORIGIN film. On that level, it's great and I'd highly recommend it to anyone.

Final thought: Javier Bardem is an amazing actor, but he should never be filmed from a low angle again. I ended up staring at his nose for 90% of the time.